Production and Mechanical Covers - "Affordable" OA or Overreaching?

[Mister Trent]

 

 

Terry's opinions on the pieces themselves and his analysis thereof is valuable, but that is not all Terry has posted.

 

Mocking Mike's description text is not a "viewpoint".

 

Suggesting he was dishonestly marking pieces "on hold" as a sales tactic is not an opinion, it falls under the category of accusation.

 

C

 

Re-read my last post. I never claimed to be 'mocking' Mike's descriptive powers (that's your interpretation). And as you've previously endorsed the cut-and-paste job I did of one of his descriptions, how can you now suddenly be changing your tune?

 

Suggesting Mike might possibly be marking pieces "on hold" was an observation, not an accusation (it would be different if I had said, "Mike's obviously putting items on hold as a sales tactic"). I used the word, "perhaps?" to indicate I was considering a possibility. And you yourself have come up with several other 'possible' scenarios - all of which I've agreed sound plausible.

 

Chris, I'm off out soon for the night.

 

If you've another response in the pipeline, I'll be happy to continue the debate tomorrow . . .

[comix4fun]

Re-read my last post. I never claimed to be 'mocking' Mike's descriptive powers (that's your interpretation). And as you've previously endorsed the cut-and-paste job I did of one of his descriptions, how can you now suddenly be changing your tune?

 

Maybe I am still tired from the convention in Charlotte over the weekend, but I don't know what you are talking about. I can't imagine I made fun of him too. If you let me know when/where that was it will jog my memory perhaps.

 

In any case, in your response to Rob Frey's post that it was back up for sale you took a single paragraph from his description and posted it. It was a "hard sell" paragraph by Mike, but it didn't describe the art at all. What was the reason for posting it?

 

Suggesting Mike might possibly be marking pieces "on hold" was an observation, not an accusation (it would be different if I had said, "Mike's obviously putting items on hold as a sales tactic"). I used the word, "perhaps?" to indicate I was considering a possibility. And you yourself have come up with several other 'possible' scenarios - all of which I've agreed sound plausible.

.

 

 

Terry,

Maybe it's the gap in common language but calling someone dishonest and then sticking a ? at the end of the sentence is still calling into question their honesty regardless of punctuation. Since you chose to never actually asked Mike why the cover was marked on hold and then taken off you have ZERO basis for questioning his honesty.

 

It's really as simple as that, I was enjoying your analysis of the artwork and the stats and then you started to lose me when you engaged in this type of thing.

 

And as Artemis said, that's my opinion and I am entitled to it...don't suppress me.

 

C

[Mister Trent]

 

 

Terry,

Maybe it's the gap in common language but calling someone dishonest and then sticking a ? at the end of the sentence is still calling into question their honesty regardless of punctuation. Since you chose to never actually asked Mike why the cover was marked on hold and then taken off you have ZERO basis for questioning his honesty.

 

C

 

Definitely my last comment for now . . .

 

Here's what I actually said:

 

"And as a side-note, I have noticed some high-ticket items on Mike's site appearing to be sold (or put on hold), only to re-appear a short while later as 'new' items (some sort of sales tactic, perhaps?)."

 

I don't see that I call Mike dishonest above . . . at least that wasn't my intention.

 

I was making an observation and considering one possibility (a sales tactic, perhaps?). You've come up with other possibilities . . .

 

I think you're the one who's quick to accuse (and trying to put words in my mouth).

[comix4fun]

And thinking about it...we live in a world where 100% stat pages from the 90's go for $200-300 and In house ad stat pages from the 60's...,with no art at all, go for $800-1000.

 

I don't know if our combined experience and knowledge will ever get to the bottom of whether this price is fair or proper when people are shelling out this much for pieces that are complete photocopies. At a certain point none of the conventional wisdom applies being that these have to be emotional purchases instead of logical ones.

 

C

[comix4fun]

Definitely my last comment for now . . .

 

Here's what I actually said:

 

"And as a side-note, I have noticed some high-ticket items on Mike's site appearing to be sold (or put on hold), only to re-appear a short while later as 'new' items (some sort of sales tactic, perhaps?)."

 

I don't see that I call Mike dishonest above . . . at least that wasn't my intention.

 

I was making an observation and considering one possibility (a sales tactic, perhaps?). You've come up with other possibilities . . .

 

I think you're the one who's quick to accuse (and trying to put words in my mouth).

 

 

I was ok with what you said until you edited and added in that last sentence. I was prepared to take you at face value that perhaps your words came out wrong or were misconstrued but if you want to lay the blame on me for what you said I guess we can't come to common ground, which is a pity.

 

C

 

EDIT: By this I meant I hoped you could see how people reading your comments could easily take that you thought that Mike was intentionally listing and delisting items to generate false interest, even if that was not what you intended to say.

[comicartcom]

I need to make a reply and bring up a few points about this post

 

I used to own these pieces & the cover can be seen in one of my art catalogs circa 1988-1990

 

If I remember correctly, while the cover with the central stat image does indeed have an original marvel logo stat and the surrounding art to the stat has been drawn in by a Marvel staff artist (probably George Roussos) and also while it is possible that the logo was removed from the original cover.. this is irrelevant to anything.

 

The title stats are so meaningless by and large that it is a ridiculous argument that one should be vandalized to remake the other back to it's original state. To remarry the logo would be to remove a piece of the published cover and seeing as to seasoned art collectors like myself who have been involved in the field for 40 years that the logo is an insignificant part of the piece.. It's just foolishness

 

Price: Folks.. I think that all of your Marvel art collectors are out of yor minds.. But that's just my perpsective. I sold that cover for $750 almost 20 years ago. But in true comic collecting manner it has increased in value by 5000%. Even worse, the reason I sold it when I did was because IT'S A CRAPPY COVER ANYWAY.

 

To the old time collectors like myself the values of stuff like that, or John Byrne X-men art, or Jim Lee or Todd MacFarlane art is something from Planet Insanity. Even the values of Ditko Spidey or Kirby FF art is totally nuts. But valuation is something about comics that is beyond understanding anymore.

 

The unfortunate part about the comic hobby is this:

in 1970 when we would collect, we had no real interest in whether our collections were going to increase in value.. We collected them because we wanted them and that was all. We wanted to read them, study them, check out the artists etc. Financial acruement was so far down the list you have no idea.

 

Today's hobby is not at all about having fun - presuming that fun does not mean money. All the news today in comics focuses on "how much is that worth.. did he get a deal.. why is that so much"

 

people focused on financial increase are not true collectors, they are investors and every person who expects to see a yearly increase - or an increase 6 times this year as an item is resold multiple times is only involved in a Ponzi pyramid scheme

 

Mike Burkey, Albert Moy, Anthony Snyder and all the rest of the guys may be my good friends, but they also know that I think that the hobby is out of control and collapsing

 

yes collapsing

 

Values may be increasing, but the hobby as a whole is getting smaller all the time. Something that is evidenced by there being only about 1000 comic book stores in the USA down from a high of almost 5000 stores 15 years ago.

 

Another way to see how it's collapsing is by looking at publication numbers. Fewer comic books by all publishers are sold today than any single issue of Captain Marvel during WW2 or Walt Disney's Comics & Stories through the 1950s and to be hionest.. when I go look at new comics today, all I see is total garbage. About 1% of them are worth reading and the art is spaghetti. I think you can go blind trying to decipher all the lines that some artists put on a page.

 

but I digress.. Yes I think $32,000 is too much for the original art and $6000 is too much for the stat. They should be sold as a unit (that's how I sold them. I threw the stat cover in with the sale of the real art) and once they got over $3500, that's when I thought the price became too high

[Mister Trent]

Re-read my last post. I never claimed to be 'mocking' Mike's descriptive powers (that's your interpretation). And as you've previously endorsed the cut-and-paste job I did of one of his descriptions, how can you now suddenly be changing your tune?

 

Maybe I am still tired from the convention in Charlotte over the weekend, but I don't know what you are talking about. I can't imagine I made fun of him too. If you let me know when/where that was it will jog my memory perhaps.

 

C

 

Chris

 

Thanks for the PM regarding "Thumbs Up".

 

I couldn't remember which thread this appeared on until you jogged my memory!

 

For anyone still with us, I've re-kindled the post on the ORIGINAL ART MARKETPLACE section (where it appeared).

 

The thread's title is:

 

Wanted - 2000AD Art, particularly BOLLAND

 

Now that this loose-thread is tied-up, perhaps it's time we called it a day on this topic?

[Mister Trent]

I need to make a reply and bring up a few points about this post

 

I used to own these pieces & the cover can be seen in one of my art catalogs circa 1988-1990

 

If I remember correctly, while the cover with the central stat image does indeed have an original marvel logo stat and the surrounding art to the stat has been drawn in by a Marvel staff artist (probably George Roussos) and also while it is possible that the logo was removed from the original cover.. this is irrelevant to anything.

 

The title stats are so meaningless by and large that it is a ridiculous argument that one should be vandalized to remake the other back to it's original state. To remarry the logo would be to remove a piece of the published cover and seeing as to seasoned art collectors like myself who have been involved in the field for 40 years that the logo is an insignificant part of the piece.. It's just foolishness

 

 

Actually, what I had in mind was that the original art (minus its current badly color-matched re-created logo) could merely be positioned over the published cover just underneath the published logo area.

 

That way the original drawing would be re-united with the original logo (without actually destroying either piece).

 

The published cover would remain fully intact.

 

Just an idea.

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Re-read my last post. I never claimed to be 'mocking' Mike's descriptive powers (that's your interpretation). And as you've previously endorsed the cut-and-paste job I did of one of his descriptions, how can you now suddenly be changing your tune?

 

Maybe I am still tired from the convention in Charlotte over the weekend, but I don't know what you are talking about. I can't imagine I made fun of him too. If you let me know when/where that was it will jog my memory perhaps.

 

C

 

Chris

 

Thanks for the PM regarding "Thumbs Up".

 

I couldn't remember which thread this appeared on until you jogged my memory!

 

For anyone still with us, I've re-kindled the post on the ORIGINAL ART MARKETPLACE section (where it appeared).

 

The thread's title is:

 

Wanted - 2000AD Art, particularly BOLLAND

 

Now that this loose-thread is tied-up, perhaps it's time we called it a day on this topic?

 

 

Sounds good to me....I found that thread too and I was responding to someone else who asked if you owned that cover to tell them that you were not trying to shill the sale and gave him the (thumbs u and said you were just admiring the prose. I can see where you are coming from thinking it was a (thumbs u for the original post.

[NelsonAI]

Artemis

- a thought provoking thread and one of the more eloquent writing styles on this board.

 

Richard

- great historical information. I always look forward to reading your commentary on the industry.

 

All the best.

Cheers!

N

 

 

[comicartcom]

Mister Trent..

Marrying the two pieces would be silly.. They are what they are and changing anything changes historical info. Besides , it wouldn't increase any value.. but it would potentially decarese the stats piece

 

and Nelson..

 

well thank you sir!!

[Artemaria]

Artemis

- a thought provoking thread and one of the more eloquent writing styles on this board.

 

Richard

- great historical information. I always look forward to reading your commentary on the industry.

 

All the best.

Cheers!

N

 

 

Nelson -

 

These very thoughtful kind words mean all the more considering the source.

 

Thank you so very much!

 

Best regards.

 

- A

[Mister Trent]

Mister Trent..

Marrying the two pieces would be silly.. They are what they are and changing anything changes historical info. Besides , it wouldn't increase any value.. but it would potentially decarese the stats piece

 

 

Richie

 

Looking at the original art, the current logo area appears to have been a later addition (the whiteness contrasting against the creamyness of the illustration area).

 

The published cover appears to have had its logo cannibalised from the original art.

 

I'm not suggesting anything should be physically changed.

 

All I've suggested is that - if both pieces went into the same collection - the new logo (on the original art) could be removed (as it doesn't appear to have been originally a part of art).

 

The remaining image are of the original art could then be positioned over the statted area of the published cover image - and held into place by depositing into a mylar sleeve.

 

Neither piece is altered (unless you class the removal of the newly created logo from the original art as such - I don't).

 

How the OA would look minus the re-created logo area. This piece is then placed on top of the published cover.

 

The end-result?

 

The OA is re-united with the logo that was once a part of it (before being cannibalised to create the published cover).

 

As a matter of interest, does anyone else think this to be a silly idea?

 

Thoughts??

 

And on the point of value, wasn't it you who said:

 

people focused on financial increase are not true collectors, they are investors and every person who expects to see a yearly increase - or an increase 6 times this year as an item is resold multiple times is only involved in a Ponzi pyramid scheme

 

For myself, although I'm not quite as long in the hobby as your good self, I still have over a quarter-of-a-century of OA collecting behind me. Like you, when I first started collecting, it was because I had a love of the art.

 

That hasn't changed for me. The fact that this stuff has increased in value is both an unexpected bonus and also a curse.

 

A curse because it's difficult to acquire new stuff (of the type of art I focus on) because of the insane prices involved.

 

Which brings us full circle to the thrust of this thread . . .

[comicartcom]

well one problem is if you look at both logos.. they did more than remove the logog and small gaps will appear in thos areas

 

secondly.. what's the big ef'n deal..

 

with comic books.. you can wait for another copy of whatever you're looking for

 

on original art.. it is what it is.. if the too white logo bothers you.. you can color it by wiping a wet teabag over the stat which stains the silver print

 

I have a Foster Tarzan from 1934 which I love.. I've had about 20 or 30 tarzans by Foster... but this one is the best (I have a shot somewhere)

 

the piece was in a frame with a pice of glass broken out about the size of a melon

it was in someone's basement, near the water heater exposed to the elements. Over the years the area that was exposed tanned much more tha the rest of the piece.

 

would you send it out to be bleached??

 

My answer.. NO EF'N WAY

 

I enjoy it just the way it is and if I send it out everytime I look at it all I'll be thinking to myself is "why did I send this ef'n piece out to be bleached"

 

instead of "oh man that is so beautiful"

 

do not apply anything from collecting comic books to the mindset of collecting comic art.. They are not the same and the condition & 9.8 collecting mentality of comic books reduces the nostalgia of collecting on an emotional level

 

but there is another reality.. the TOS covers are "in original condition as used by Marvel Comics" and so there is nothing to restore.

 

let me ask you something

 

there is a commonly printed Kirby image of the FF in front of a heart shape that Johnny made out of flames.

 

I sold that piece about 20 years ago and it was just a pencil piece.. gorgeous piece

the owner had Sinnott (I think) ink it later which I think ruined the piece because Jack meant it to be only a pencilled piece for a fan. I love Joe, he's great and if anyone was going to ink it.. Joe should be him.. But it was beautiful as it was and I'm a purist.

 

whatever floats yer boat when you put out the money I guess..

[Mister Trent]

I don't collect EF'N comic books . . . haven't collected EF'N comic-books for 26 years!

 

And as for my thoughts on the two TOS covers . . .

 

No EF'N big deal!! lol

[Mister Trent]

on original art.. it is what it is.. if the too white logo bothers you.. you can color it by wiping a wet teabag over the stat which stains the silver print

 

. . . or you could rub excrement over the logo and pretend it's genuine staining from the printers?

[comicartcom]

.. I guess you aren't aware that the tea bag thing is an old restoration trick do you..

 

I know quite a number of people, including myself, who have used the technique to make stats match aging of the art.

 

But you can sh*t on the art.. if that's the color you're looking for

[Mister Trent]

.. I guess you aren't aware that the tea bag thing is an old restoration trick do you..

 

I know quite a number of people, including myself, who have used the technique to make stats match aging of the art.

 

Nope, but tell me . . . what do you recommend . . . a nice Earl Grey, perhaps?